About your Search

20130121
20130129
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
, for example, on a base and there are multiple religions who want to use that chapel or sacred space then there should be no permanent religious symbol on the extearer or interor because it's used by others. and i would say not because i would like everyone to have lots of different views and-- but no, it's to protect the constitution, which is the government should not establish one religion over another, in this case, i think it's a good thing. if there are many different religious beliefs represented they should not establish one over the other. >> ainsley: what building is this? isn't it a chapel? >> they could use that sacred space for different groups. if you have a cross outside of the chapel used by many different religious groups, including jewish and muslim then you're saying this is just for christians. >> is the answer not to remove the cross, to have the inclusion of all religious symbols there, how difficult would that be. >> the policy is that there's no permanent symbols and then once the religious service is going on, put up crosses, crucifixes, whatever religious sy
, we are moving in our country to maybe a state religion which says anybody who is -- who leaves homo ickes allity is biblically untrue is a pariah and fall back to the neanderthal days and we're forcing a religious belief on the catholics and muslims and all these religious groups who happen to believe that homosexuality is inappropriate. you should be able to believe what you want to believe but i don't think the government should force a religion on to a nation of people where we have so held, cling to our idea of religious freedom. someone told me -- this is a high level person, heads up a think texas -- that george southerlies funded an organization that is going into churches to tape sermons for the fact that going forward -- i believe section 501(c)(3) but the bob jones university lost its tax exemption because they had a policy against interracial marriage, and that was against public policy. so what this section of the irs says, 501, if you are against public policy, your tax exemption will be gone. so the belief is that -- that's may sound con pierer toal -- they want to get
. we're not children who need to be parented or misguided, bitter clingers to guns and religion. we believe in our right to defend ourselves and our families with semiautomatic firearms technology. we believe that if neither the criminal nor the political class and their bodyguards and security people are limited by magazine capacity, we shouldn't be limited in our capacity either. >> you know, mayor, your thoughts. he is basically saying we got to arm people or allow them to be armed up to the armed power of the united states government. this is really something. this is about posse comitatus. this isn't about sportsmanship or about self-protection, it's about insurrection. it's about fighting the revenuers again. >> and he is totally misleading his people. he knows that anyone who works for the government in any capacity with the firearm is severely reviewed before they're allowed to touch a firearm. they are required to be skillful. they are required to report in. they are required to be held accountable for every use of that firearm, something that this man obviously would oppos
is somewhat distressing, we are moving in our country to maybe a state religion which says anybody who believes homosexuality is biblically untrue is some kind of a pariah, and so we're forcing a religious belief on the catholics and on the muslims and all these religious groups who happen to believe that homosexuality's inappropriate. whatever each of you believe, you should be able to believe what you want to believe. but i don't think the government should force or a religion onto a nation of people where we've so held, clinged to our idea of religious freedom. someone has told me, and this is a high-level person who all of you know, he heads up one of the think tanks, that george soros has funded an organization which is now going into churches to tape sermons for the fact that going forward -- i believe it's section 501 and not necessarily 501(c)(3), but the bob jones university lost its tax exemption because they had a policy against interracial marriage. and that was against public policy. so what this section in the irs says, 501, if you are against public policy, your tax exem
religion and of saw samoan background, i think it's about time we had leadership from the furtherrest western part of our country that's represented through her in hawaii where we have great promises to be able to move the this country through the pacific rim and make sure that we have a democratic party that understands the pacific rim much better than we have in the past. so i look forward to a really great, diverse group. and i love to hear the names like munoz, durasno. those are good, great names. [applause] and what that means is this asian person with this asian face don't have to go to nevada and into new mexico and texas and speak spanish, because we already got some folks already part of this thing. and i just want to say to my friend lynn -- linda chavez, when we were campaigning the very first, thank you for letting me serenade you when i was first running. because without that ability to serenade you, i don't think anybody would have known who that asian guy was. [laughter] and i just have to tell you that y'all made it possible for a child of a sharecropper to be able to
of religion, what are these but the recognition that at times when the majority of men would willingly destroy him, a descending man may have no friend but the law. this power given to the minority is the most sophisticated and the most vital power bestowed by our constitution. "he was not willing to end a grave injustice which the civil rights legislation would have achieved by a method that he felt ran roughshod over the rights of the minority. and he warned us against the attempts, in his words, to destroy the power of the minority in the name of another minority. mike mansfield, leader of the senate, supporting a modification in the rule to reduce the number of senators needed to end debate from 67 to 60, although he supported the change in the rules, opposed the use of the nuclear option or the constitutional option to achieve it. and this is what mike mansfield said. arguing for the reform, he said -- quote -- "the urgency or even wisdom of adopting the 3/5 resolution does not justify a path of destruction for the senate as an institution and its vital importance to our scheme of gover
. king says, regardless of nationality, race or religion to admit our wrongs and turn from them. i believe that the denial of the right to life is the greatest injustice we face in the world today. there is no compassion in killing, she sails. there is no justice in writing people out of the human race. history, mr. speaker, will not look favorably on today's abortion culture. we must indeed and instead work tirelessly to replace it with a culture of life. i would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague, macha blackburn, for such time as she may consume. -- marsha blackburn, for such time as she may consume. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from new jersey for the excellent work that he continues to do year in and year out on this issue. i appreciate his leadership and we do stand today and mark the 40th anniversary of the tragic roe v. wade decision and it really is said that not all life is created equal. and since the supreme court gave our government's approval if you will of on-demand abortion, there have been over 55 million lives lo
been contingent on progress from freedom of expression, freedom of religion. due process under the law. secretary clinton waived that so this could go to this new regime. this technology should not be going to this regime now. at the same time we need to find a way to ensure egypt doesn't give away the peace they have had with israel for a long time. that may be going any way because of the muslim brotherhood. dollars is how we have leverage. >>gretchen: do you think there's anything in the fine print that says you can only use these f-16's for specific purposes or not? >> how do we control it once they're in their hands? plus the relationship our military has had with their military for so long has eroded a little bit since the muslim brotherhood took over. once you hand these weapons over, i don't know that you have much control on how they're used. all the technology is not in them. they are not u.s. specs. their capabilities are below what ours are. still they can outfit them the way they want, use them as they fit. in the hands of the muslim brotherhood, this is not good. we have
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)